Vikram Singh Yadav ORDER
Vikram Singh Yadav, Member (A)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 02, Jaipur dated 22.08.2019.
2. The only effective ground of appeal relates to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on difference between actual sale consideration and DLC value of immovable property sold by the assessee.
3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that during the financial year relevant to impugned assessment year, the assessee had sold a shop for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- value of which was adopted by the stamp duty authority at Rs. 6,10,313/-. It was submitted that in order to avoid any litigation, the assessee in his return of income declared the capital gains by applying the provisions of section 50C by taking the sale consideration of Rs. 6,10,313/- as adopted by stamp duty authority as against actual sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/- received by the assessee resulting in the additional tax liability which has been duly paid, however, the same has been made the basis for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and which is the subject matter of present penalty proceedings.
4. It was submitted that the addition tax liability has arisen on account of applying the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished all the relevant facts and documents genuineness of which have not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that it is not the case where it has been alleged by the Assessing officer that the assessee has received any consideration over and above the consideration as declared in the sale deed. It was accordingly submitted that merely on account of deeming provisions, it cannot be construed to be a case of furnish of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. It was submitted that section 50C is a deeming provision and it has to be strictly construed and cannot be extended for the purpose of levy of penalty. It was further submitted that even penalty provisions needs to be construed strictly and only where there is any positive evidence of concealment of income, the penalty can be levied. It was submitted that in the instant case, the assessee has suo-moto adopted the deemed sale consideration u/s. 50C while filing the return of income and which has been accepted, thus, there is no question of furnish of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income.
5. In support of his contentions, the reliance was placed on the Jaipur Bench decision in case of Anita Beniwal, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Alwar (ITA No. 743/JP/2012 dated 05/06/2015), the Lucknow Bench decision in case of ACIT vs. Lohia Starlinger Ltd. (ITA No. 42/LKW/2014 dated 21.08.2014), the Mumbai Benches decision in case of Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2210/Mum/2010 dated 2212.2010) and in case of DCIT vs. Trans Freight Containers Ltd. (ITA No. 2337/Mum/2016 dated 24.02.2017), the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT, Vadodara vs. Sun on Peak Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (R/Tax Appeal No. 556/2018 dated 12.06.2018) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR-158.
6. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed return of income originally u/s. 139(1) of the Act though, he has sold the property and earned capital gains thereon. The assessee has declared his income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer and penalty ha........